What do you think of Andy Ngo?

[ThroughTheBarsOfARhyme]

This is a bit of a tenuous link to feminism, it’s probably more about free speech, but I saw that a member of Mumford & Sons was criticised for praising his book (about antifa) and that his book had previously been banned from Amazon. It seems a bit like TRA tactics and a similar response to Abigail Shrier’s book. I’ve just bought his book to read but I was interested in other’s opinions of him and/or the book. Is he speaking the truth and people are trying to suppress it (similar with feminists) or is he exaggerating and not someone to praise?
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/mumford-sons-winston-marshall-taking-time-to-examine-blindspots-after-praising-andy-ngos-unmasked-book-12241592

I appreciate this really isn’t feminism so I will ask for it to be moved if people think it should be.

@AdHominemNonSequitur don’t worry we have clarified I do not need to give evidence for my opinions just as @MissBarbary does not have to. You can stop spamming links now.

This thread is tipped over into the "worth reading" category because of AdHominemNonSequitur playing spot the logicalfallacies. Very amusing.

[quote cinammonbuns]@SunsetBeetch oh I am sorry, from now on I will make sure I clarify that everything I say is actually my opinion those who may understand.
Instead of saying ‘Cow’s milk is gross.’ I will be sure to say: ‘In my opinion cow’s milk is gross.’ Just for those who may otherwise misunderstand.[/quote]
And that's probably a recharacterisation fallacy
but well done, that is at least not one of the common logical fallacies.

www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-logical-fallacy-of-turning-fact-into-opinion.634974/

[quote cinammonbuns]@SunsetBeetch oh I am sorry, from now on I will make sure I clarify that everything I say is actually my opinion those who may understand.
Instead of saying ‘Cow’s milk is gross.’ I will be sure to say: ‘In my opinion cow’s milk is gross.’ Just for those who may otherwise misunderstand.[/quote]
But that would quite obviously be an opinion though, considering it's a matter of personal taste

Anyway, does anyone know how you'd differentiate between alt right and ordinary right?

Only if you enjoy discussions on a chat forum, of course. I'm skint til Tuesday.

@SunsetBeetch

I see Ngo has denied the accusations and his lawyer wrote to the newspaper asking them to retract. Are "Ben"'s videos available anywhere?

The video is literally embedded in the Portland Mercury piece, who stand by their journalism and as far as I'm aware have not yet been sued.

Oh ok thanks jj . I scrolled past it thinking it was (yet another) advert.

he's a right wing nob, i honestly don't think you can support right wing stances and still be feminist...

@MOTU

he's a right wing nob, i honestly don't think you can support right wing stances and still be feminist...

Agreed, but you don't have to endorse someones whole stance or like them as a person, to agree with the merit of some of the things they say and liking someone or thinking they are good doesn't mean they are correct. It's black and white thinking.

[quote cinammonbuns]@MissBarbary again where did I say anything about Winston Marshall. You do love to pull assertions out of thin air.[/quote]
Oh dear me. My point was that you have plenty to say about Nazis but nothing actually to say about the specific topic of this thread.

Oh and there's no point of @ at me. I haven't turned that on.

@MissBarbary Not me who mentioned Nazi’s which again has already been clarified .

Agreed, but you don't have to endorse someones whole stance or like them as a person, to agree with the merit of some of the things they say and liking someone or thinking they are good doesn't mean they are correct. It's black and white thinking.

Yup. His piece about London was ridiculous. But that doesn't mean Antifa isn't a menace. And saying Antifa is a menace doesn't mean that Patriot Prayer/The Proud Boys/whoever else aren't as well.

Have to say jj that I found that video footage inconclusive. Yes , Ngo is tagging along with them, but he's kind of separate to them iyswim. I don't know what led to him walking along with them - he could have just bumped into them and followd along because they would probably lead him to whatever 'action' was going to kick off. That's just speculation on my part though of course.

I didn't see him laughing at them discussing weapons. And he had his phone in his hand the whole time - how is Ben sure he wasn't recording or making notes or something?

So I'm on the fence there.

I see Ngo is taking Rose City Antifa to court, so it will be interesting to see how that pans out, and what evidence the defence may have.

And does the fact antifa defended themselves make them just as bad?

Again, that's just not how antifa behave in general. Maybe some of the time they are behaving themselves and they get attacked; but I mean, it's their ideology to use violence against their political opponents. (And apparently the police and/or government also.)

Of course if left-wingers are doing a peaceful counter-protest, and they get attacked by the far-right, they have every right to defend themselves. Just the same as people have a right to defend themselves against antifa yes?

@allmywhat

And there we have it. jj DOES think Andy Ngo deserved to be attacked.

Actually quoted in jj's long post above and it's not refuted. Not even mentioned other than a reference how "antifa defended themselves."

Yes, it's excruciatingly clear.

Wonder what those women who had escaped and survived being trafficked into prostitution and pornography did to deserve being abused, threatened with violence and who had to have a cordon put around them to avoid being violently, physically attacked by antifa and TRA's, in Paris on Sunday - perhaps jj1968 could enlighten us. I am seriously dying to hear how jj1968 is going to minimise and defend this as they dismiss every other threat and physical violence against women, come on don't disappoint jj, are you going to use your usual trop that those trafficked women deserved it, they are alt right perhaps?

With this talk of the "alt right"... I'm not going to worry exactly what that means and how it's defined... I don't really care.

I will just point out that mainstream conservatives and the mainstream left-wing are ALL against violent extremism whether it's on the far-right or groups like antifa.

Or does someone want to argue that the mainstream left-wing actually supports political violence of antifa-style groups? Political violence is good?

So yeah, both sides condemn antifa, and if Andy Ngo is "alt right" (whatever that means) then he is still correct to condemn antifa also.

So I'm on the fence there.

Did Ngo go and post a story after this event confirming that the conflict at Cider Riot was down to a premdeitated attack by the far right? Did he use the excuse he was fiddling with his phone to warn the venue or the police what was to come?

Here's another example of his journalism, claiming that this photo is the victim of an antifa hammer attack when if you look at the thread it quite clear the 'victim' was the one with the hammer: twitter.com/RespectableLaw/status/1162972206147743744

Or the time a car deliberately ploughed into a group of peaceful protesters dragging one of them 30 foot down the road and Ngo presented the response to the incident as an unprovoked attack in which the driver was pushed and his car hit as on an innocent motorist: www.jacobinmag.com/2019/08/andy-ngo-right-wing-antifa-protest-portland-bigotry

There is a clear pattern here of dishonest reporting whether intended to minimise far right violence or demonise minorities. Why would he do that if he didn't support the far right movement?

(the last link is well worth reading as a comprehensive analysis of Ngo's role in bolstering far right violence)

Or does someone want to argue that the mainstream left-wing actually supports political violence of antifa-style groups? Political violence is good?

Were the Stonewall riots good? Or the Battle of Cable Street? Or the Suffragette bombs?

There are times when political violence is legitimate, or even just inevitable. When a bunch of people looking like this turn up on mass in your home city looking for a fight I would suggest that is one of those times.

Ok jj I've looked into all those incidents and I still don't see any conclusive evidence that Ngo is a liar, or in league with the alt right.

Heeeereee we goooooo

The first incident (actually, incidentS) and accusations by "Ben":

This video gives a good breakdown of the accusations against Ngo.

He confirms some things I already knew/thought and also points out some other things (all backed up).

The claims that the milkshakes contained cement were spread by the police (see here: twitter.com/PortlandPolice/status/1145106839618502656?s=20 )
Ben's video was from May. Andy's assault was in June.
Andy was not near the group when they were discussing weapons (clear from the video).
The group were discussing what they would do if Antifa attacked them. They weren't planning attack (which is what I thought too - and I noted that they also say they are going to use the opposite side of the road) (clear from the video)

The bus and hammer incident:

Andy quoted his own tweet to clarify what actually happened. Yes he got it wrong. I remember that incident and clipped videos were flying around twitter until people started realising there were longer videos that showed a different story (as so happens both on left anf right wing twitter - remember the Covington School kids? - I fell for that one).

So he messed up, but corrected himself.

twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1162927132760166402?s=20

Car incident.

That article is incorrect. Here is what Andy said about that incident:

"As the crowd made their way to a nearby courthouse, they marched in the middle of the street, bringing traffic to a stop though they didn’t have a permit. Kent Houser, 74, made the mistake of attempting to pass them in his sedan. His car slowly pushed against a masked marcher. The crowd surrounded the car and started kicking it. After speeding down the block, Mr. Houser stepped out and was assaulted by the mob. They pushed him and smashed his car with clubs after he managed to get back inside the vehicle. No police were in sight even though the central precinct was blocks away."

This is supported by this video, which is longer than and taken from a different angle to the one in the article.

The driver does not "plough into" the protesters. He's driving slowly, and one of the protesters for some reason thinks it's a good idea to get in front of his car and try and push it. The driver keeps slowly going forward. Nobody was harmed.

Absolutely we all need to challenge our own biases. Doing our own research and not just believing information because it comes from the "right" source is always valuable.

When a bunch of people looking like this turn up on mass in your home city looking for a fight I would suggest that is one of those times.

I disagree. Rather, you let the police handle it if anyone has criminal intentions. You don't attack people just because you believe they are looking for a fight.

@jj1968

Or does someone want to argue that the mainstream left-wing actually supports political violence of antifa-style groups? Political violence is good?

Were the Stonewall riots good? Or the Battle of Cable Street? Or the Suffragette bombs?

There are times when political violence is legitimate, or even just inevitable. When a bunch of people looking like this turn up on mass in your home city looking for a fight I would suggest that is one of those times.

I'd rather let the police and/or army do their job, rather than let two violent mobs duke it out. Call me crazy.

Although I know Antifa wouldn't agree, as they are just as likely to attack the police.

Not to mention all the times Antifa kick off when they're aren't any alt righters around. What did all those buildings and cars do to them?

@Zinco

When a bunch of people looking like this turn up on mass in your home city looking for a fight I would suggest that is one of those times.

I disagree. Rather, you let the police handle it if anyone has criminal intentions. You don't attack people just because you believe they are looking for a fight.

So that's what should have happened at Cable Street is it? And the socialists who fought against the rise of Hitler and Mussolini should have backed off and let the police handle it? Asian communities should not defend themselves when the EDL turn up because the police have got it taken care of? Black Lives Matter don't need to worry about their protests being attacked by the far right, because the boys in blue are there to protect them? You seem somewhat naive about the role, intent and capabilities of the police in these situations.

This video gives a good breakdown of the accusations against Ngo.

It really doesn't. One person suggests waiting on the other side of the street, no doubt because they are outnumbered. That doesn't change the fact they deliberately went to a bar with weapons to confront those drinking inside. The protest was over, and had been peaceful, why would they do that? And Ngo is with them all the way, I don't care what we may or may not have heard, he must have seen the weapons and the gloves and the helmets and known what was coming and he did nothing. Important to remember those with him are now facing serious criminal charges for these events.

So he messed up, but corrected himself.

Only because he'd been caught outright lying and so didn't have much choice. He doesn't apologise. Amusing the way he claims the guy being attacked with a hammer stole it from his attacker though. The hammer he decided to bring to a protest, as you do.

The claims that the milkshakes contained cement were spread by the police

Perhaps one reason people shouldn't just leave it to the police to sort out. But the police claim to have had reports, they didn't verify them and those reports came from the far right and were amplified by the far right to the point it became a global myth. There is footage of people drinking those milkshakes, it's an absolutely ridiculous claim.

The driver does not "plough into" the protesters.

He drives at the crowd, almost hitting someone, then turns pushing the guy who got in front of him down the road. I've been part of a protest when a driver does something dickish like that, it doesn't matter if they aren't going very fast, it's frightening and dangerous.

He's currently claiming antifa set fire to Portland Courthouse after a small fire was lit outside the building and which was quickly extinguished by police at an environmental protest yesterday. There is no evidence the fire was lit by 'antifa', the building was never on fire, but neither of those facts seem to matter. He's a propagandist, he lies, and anything he says should be judged on that basis.

@nauticant

This business of MN being on the alt-right and the screeds of mind-numbing browbeating deliberately miss that the shift in FWR over the past few years has been a growing dislike of authoritarianism. That's it.

It's interesting to see how some people absolutely loathe this growing awareness.

Agreed nauticant, puts me in mind of this...

I've not rtft yet but already I'm going to bet we've got the usual Marcusian radical left/SJW arsewash where any even vaguely conservative position let alone a right wing one, or indeed anyone that they don't agree with, is seen as but a bawhair away from all out total fascism and must be righteously fought against (including with actual violence) by those on the side of the angels because they know they are the "good guys"....where's an MN eye roll emoji when you need it?

I don't think you should prejudge in that way terryleather.

(Even when what you say is spot on .)

[quote cinammonbuns]**@AdHominemNonSequitur* don’t worry we have clarified I do not need to give evidence for my opinions just as @MissBarbary* does not have to. You can stop spamming links now.[/quote]
you dont need evidence for opinions (though most people who dont want to come accross as totally idiotic do give some kind of explination, ofter refering to selected facts)
but assertions presented as undesputible truth, then yes, yes you very much do need to present evidence.
espicially if you are smearing anyone who does not accept your belief as a natzi.